Drive Yourself Sane by Susan and Bruce Kodish has essentially the exact same principles that were mentioned by Hayakawa in Language in Thought and Action. The set up was the same, the way of presenting the principles was the same, and even some of the drawings were the same. However, there was one major difference: the way the book was portrayed (or advertised) to the public, potential readers.
Drive Yourself Sane was portrayed as a self-help book (which I was not aware of when I chose the book for the project). It is much more "user friendly" than Language in Thought and Action. The authors' intention was to change the way the readers speak, write, think, and live. The heading on the back cover says, "Are You Making the Most of the Life You Have?" and goes on to tell the reader what they will learn in the book, for example, how to "enjoy life in the moment, create better relationships, avoid future shock." Not once in the book itself does it mention any of these specifically, but implies that it is the reader's responsibility to apply the concepts to achieve these goals. Language in Thought and Action, on the other hand, is portrayed as an "informational" book. It appeals to a supposedly more "knowledgeable" population, while Drive Yourself Sane appeals to the common person.
The titles are great examples of the difference in these essentially alike books. "Drive Yourself Sane" is a catchy title that will make people be drawn to the book. "Language in Thought and Action" tells people better what is in the book, but doesn't necessarily draw their attention.
I believe that the way a book is advertised makes the difference in who reads it, how many people read it, and what type of people read it. These two books are basically the same, but the way they are advertised determines how people view them.
-Audrey
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Distinction Between Knowledge and Wisdom
The distinction between knowledge and wisdom is subtle, but very important to comprehend. John Dewey brilliantly explores the difference between the two in a chapter of How We Think.
Whenever I hear the word "wisdom," I automatically associate it with "sage." A sage is extremely insightful, not just because of all the knowledge he has received in his life, but also--and most importantly--how such knowledge has been applied to his personal life. That is the true distinction between knowledge and wisdom, which Dewey emphasizes.
Dewey discusses the "abuse of linguistic methods" in school. He claims that schools inform students with many facts for each subject-matter, but neglect the most essential part of education: incorporating such facts to one's personal life. He states that if a student cannot implement what he has been informed in school to his life, there is no relevance, and thus the student cannot fully comprehend the information he has received. Dewey further explains how schools don't apply the facts taught to students to personal experiences, but rather tend to use the facts taught in texts as the basis, and expound from that with even more facts. For this reason, students find many school subjects irrelevant to their personal lives.
I have one more thing to add pertaining to knowledge, which Dewey made mention of as well: No matter how much knowledge an individual has acquired throughout his education, it is all fruitless if he has not incorporated it into his life somehow. The "educated idiot" oxymoron clearly exemplifies this statement. One may be erudite, but that doesn't make him wise. There is no significance to a piece of information unless someone has experienced (whether it be through first-hand experience, second-hand, etc.) something associated with it.
-Chloe Martianou
Whenever I hear the word "wisdom," I automatically associate it with "sage." A sage is extremely insightful, not just because of all the knowledge he has received in his life, but also--and most importantly--how such knowledge has been applied to his personal life. That is the true distinction between knowledge and wisdom, which Dewey emphasizes.
Dewey discusses the "abuse of linguistic methods" in school. He claims that schools inform students with many facts for each subject-matter, but neglect the most essential part of education: incorporating such facts to one's personal life. He states that if a student cannot implement what he has been informed in school to his life, there is no relevance, and thus the student cannot fully comprehend the information he has received. Dewey further explains how schools don't apply the facts taught to students to personal experiences, but rather tend to use the facts taught in texts as the basis, and expound from that with even more facts. For this reason, students find many school subjects irrelevant to their personal lives.
I have one more thing to add pertaining to knowledge, which Dewey made mention of as well: No matter how much knowledge an individual has acquired throughout his education, it is all fruitless if he has not incorporated it into his life somehow. The "educated idiot" oxymoron clearly exemplifies this statement. One may be erudite, but that doesn't make him wise. There is no significance to a piece of information unless someone has experienced (whether it be through first-hand experience, second-hand, etc.) something associated with it.
-Chloe Martianou
Is silence semantic?
Today I was sitting in my kitchen eating something when my parents came in the room in the middle of a conversation. My dad said "Oh I see that you returned the videos, thanks." My mom stayed silent and just kind of nodded. A few minutes later when my dad went into the garage he came back into the kitchen and said "I saw the videos in your car, I thought you returned them," to which my mother replied, "Well I never actually said anything. I'm planning on returning them on the way to Philly tonight." Hearing this conversation, I mentioned that withholding information is still a form of deception, as discussed in the book I read, The Language of Deception, by Dariusz Galasinski. My mom was adamant that she didn't deceive my dad however. She kept saying that since she didn't actually reply to my dad the first time, she couldn't have made him believe anything. I pointed out that her silence was an assumed acceptance of the condition that my dad set up.
Although my argument may get me extra chores in the next week, it also got me thinking about the nature of silence. Is it as effective as words? I think a lot of times, silence causes people to assume the worst, and other times it causes people to assume agreement, like the case with my parents. But how much semantic weight can we give silence? It's not technically included in the study of words, but the study of communication, well that's another story. What does everyone else think?
-Alexa
Although my argument may get me extra chores in the next week, it also got me thinking about the nature of silence. Is it as effective as words? I think a lot of times, silence causes people to assume the worst, and other times it causes people to assume agreement, like the case with my parents. But how much semantic weight can we give silence? It's not technically included in the study of words, but the study of communication, well that's another story. What does everyone else think?
-Alexa
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Book Smart vs. Street Smart
In the book I selected, How We Think, by John Dewey, I noted a really interesting topic Dewey conveys about the different levels of education.
He begins with the disciplinary level, referring to education received at school. Dewey explains that school provides the students with logical information for each subject-matter. The students give heed to each subject-matter taught, acquire information, and take pains with memorizing and understanding each lesson.
The freedom of thought was the next form of education Dewey expatiates on. He stresses that, although a school provides the students with a sense of discipline and prepares them for more arduous work in the future, it is also capable of restricting each students' thoughts on any matters. A student's free thoughts allow him to form his own beliefs and opinions on daily matters without referring to a book or any other informative source.
Dewey believes that a student should have a balance between disciplinary education and freedom of thought. In the case of disciplinary education, a student acquires information in a mechanical, routine manner, without forming his own thoughts on the subject; he is expected to regard the information taught to him as correct, even though other views of the subject being taught could be correct as well. With freedom of thought, a student has endless boundaries to believing in what he wants to believe. Dewey warns that, though freedom of thought should be exercised daily by each individual, some thoughts formed are nonsense if they don't have a sufficient amount of information to support them.
After reading that chapter, I automatically thought of the common terms "book smart" and "street smart" that are used today to describe a person's intellect. "Book smart" and "street smart" are the currently used terms that have replaced Dewey's disciplinary and freedom of thought terms, respectively.
I completely agree with Dewey's perceptions on education. Students who are able to regurgitate everything they read out of a school book are indeed deemed the "book smart" students, but such students may also lag in the freedom of thought department. (i.e. "street smart") Those who form their own personal views, and do not adhere to what books or any other informative sources state, are very free in forming thoughts of their own on matters, ("street smart") but may also be vulnerable to sticking to erroneous beliefs or opinions.
-Chloe Martianou
He begins with the disciplinary level, referring to education received at school. Dewey explains that school provides the students with logical information for each subject-matter. The students give heed to each subject-matter taught, acquire information, and take pains with memorizing and understanding each lesson.
The freedom of thought was the next form of education Dewey expatiates on. He stresses that, although a school provides the students with a sense of discipline and prepares them for more arduous work in the future, it is also capable of restricting each students' thoughts on any matters. A student's free thoughts allow him to form his own beliefs and opinions on daily matters without referring to a book or any other informative source.
Dewey believes that a student should have a balance between disciplinary education and freedom of thought. In the case of disciplinary education, a student acquires information in a mechanical, routine manner, without forming his own thoughts on the subject; he is expected to regard the information taught to him as correct, even though other views of the subject being taught could be correct as well. With freedom of thought, a student has endless boundaries to believing in what he wants to believe. Dewey warns that, though freedom of thought should be exercised daily by each individual, some thoughts formed are nonsense if they don't have a sufficient amount of information to support them.
After reading that chapter, I automatically thought of the common terms "book smart" and "street smart" that are used today to describe a person's intellect. "Book smart" and "street smart" are the currently used terms that have replaced Dewey's disciplinary and freedom of thought terms, respectively.
I completely agree with Dewey's perceptions on education. Students who are able to regurgitate everything they read out of a school book are indeed deemed the "book smart" students, but such students may also lag in the freedom of thought department. (i.e. "street smart") Those who form their own personal views, and do not adhere to what books or any other informative sources state, are very free in forming thoughts of their own on matters, ("street smart") but may also be vulnerable to sticking to erroneous beliefs or opinions.
-Chloe Martianou
Letting Your Bias Show
According to the back of it, the book I'm reading is about how we reason to make political decisions and how we should be reasoning. However, only some of my book talks about this. During these parts, the author seems very intelligent and I agree with him. The rest of the book is horribly tainted by bias. The author attmepts to explain conservative and progressive ideals, yet I hardly trust what he says because he is so obviously biased toward the extreme left. One of the arguments he makes, is that the left to right scale is a bad metaphor because it makes people on the far side look like extremests. Upon reading this, I immediantly thought, "well, of course, you think that way, you are an exteremest." He may have been right, but the bias made me doubt it. However, if you strongly believe that your opinions are not bias, but correct, isn't it best to share with everyone what you strongly believe to be the only truly democratic (read progressive ideals) and warn them against those that are a threat to democracy (read conservative)? Surely, it would be wrong to defend the opposing position and let the threat to democracy spread. Yet by doing so, you lose credibility with many people. So, I was wondering, how much and when should bias or personal opinions be put into writing and how much do we need to try to see the other side?
~Becca LaRosa
~Becca LaRosa
Monday, September 28, 2009
What Can We Trust?
When I was thinking about the book review that we all have to write soon, one question came up to my mind. Can we trust book reviews?
After watching "The Merchant of Cool" in English class I learned a lot more about business marketing and advertisements. Now every time I watch an advertisement on TV or see an advertisement while reading a megazine, I ask a question to myself. "Is this really true? or are they just saying it?" I am the type of person who decides to buy a product on other people's suggestions. If I see "normal" people like me on the TV talking about how great the product is I think that it must be true because they are just one of the consumers like myself. But I later realize that it isn't true because people get paid to be part of the advertisement.
And then I thought about how I got to pick my reading assignment book. I was on Google searching through books on linguistics and when I found a book relevant to the topic, the first thing I did was looking at the reviews that other readers posted. I narrowed down the list of books untill I reached my final choice. I did not know if the reviews I was reading were true, but automatically believed that they were true. My mind perceived the reviews as facts, not opinions.
After I ordered my book I thought about the possibility of of the falsehood of the reviews. What if the readers who posted positive feedbacks of the book were working for the publisher or the author? What if the reviews were posted by the author himself and by those who support him? In these cases, it is extremely hard to post an unbiased evaluation of the book since the purpose of publication is to make money. Mr. Lazarow mentioned the importance of pathos of the critique when it comes to book reviews; however, unfortunately, I cannot name a single book critique who is known for unbiased evaluation.
If everything we see on TV, internet, megazines, and many other things, can be false and biased, what can we possibly trust when it comes to making decisions such as buying products to selecting colleges? (I recently noticed that colleges do a lot of advertising, too!)
Joanne Park
After watching "The Merchant of Cool" in English class I learned a lot more about business marketing and advertisements. Now every time I watch an advertisement on TV or see an advertisement while reading a megazine, I ask a question to myself. "Is this really true? or are they just saying it?" I am the type of person who decides to buy a product on other people's suggestions. If I see "normal" people like me on the TV talking about how great the product is I think that it must be true because they are just one of the consumers like myself. But I later realize that it isn't true because people get paid to be part of the advertisement.
And then I thought about how I got to pick my reading assignment book. I was on Google searching through books on linguistics and when I found a book relevant to the topic, the first thing I did was looking at the reviews that other readers posted. I narrowed down the list of books untill I reached my final choice. I did not know if the reviews I was reading were true, but automatically believed that they were true. My mind perceived the reviews as facts, not opinions.
After I ordered my book I thought about the possibility of of the falsehood of the reviews. What if the readers who posted positive feedbacks of the book were working for the publisher or the author? What if the reviews were posted by the author himself and by those who support him? In these cases, it is extremely hard to post an unbiased evaluation of the book since the purpose of publication is to make money. Mr. Lazarow mentioned the importance of pathos of the critique when it comes to book reviews; however, unfortunately, I cannot name a single book critique who is known for unbiased evaluation.
If everything we see on TV, internet, megazines, and many other things, can be false and biased, what can we possibly trust when it comes to making decisions such as buying products to selecting colleges? (I recently noticed that colleges do a lot of advertising, too!)
Joanne Park
Friday, September 25, 2009
I was chatting with a friend the other day, who was expressing her opinion about a comment one of her teachers had made in class. She was offended when the teacher reminded her students that "this is an honors class, not a special ed. class," admonishing them to be estudious and not slack off. Most of us would just say it was a somewhat harsh comment.
But my friend has a different perspective. She has a job working with the "special ed." kids, doing therapy for the autistic or mentally impaired. From working with them, she has developed close relationships with the kids and is compassionate towards the disabled. Upon hearing this teacher throw around the words "special ed.", she was angered. "How could she use that term in such a derrogatory manner, when the kids who are special ed. have no other choice than to be who they are?" she pleaded to me.
While discussing this issue, we both agreed that our society now uses these words very commonly to mean stupid, irresponsible, or in a just plain mean way. (How many times have you smacked your head after forgetting something and said "Ugh, I'm so retarded!") It's a shame to see how such words can be twisted to have derrogatory connotations.
But my friend has a different perspective. She has a job working with the "special ed." kids, doing therapy for the autistic or mentally impaired. From working with them, she has developed close relationships with the kids and is compassionate towards the disabled. Upon hearing this teacher throw around the words "special ed.", she was angered. "How could she use that term in such a derrogatory manner, when the kids who are special ed. have no other choice than to be who they are?" she pleaded to me.
While discussing this issue, we both agreed that our society now uses these words very commonly to mean stupid, irresponsible, or in a just plain mean way. (How many times have you smacked your head after forgetting something and said "Ugh, I'm so retarded!") It's a shame to see how such words can be twisted to have derrogatory connotations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)